I was only talking theoretically, it is already obvious that the commercial side of renewables (H2) will be exploited much quicker than our domestic requirements, far more money in it and immense market opportunity.It is possible, but the economics don't stack up when considering all the associated costs of transmission infrastructure and storage. Then looking at powering all the electric or hydrogen vehicles, forget it; we should just go nuclear.
Small rural and regional towns can build their own renewable microgrids. Our cities need nuclear for a clean energy future where all our road transportation is electric vehicle and/or hydrogen based.
Talking nonesense again Rob, I don't know why I bother, but here we go again.In regard to the UK, by the time their nuclear power plants are operational they will additionally have installed more than triple the generating capacity from wind. The UK remains on the right track and there are no energy economists that will support the UK's present nuclear foray.
If we followed the UK's lead, by the time Snowy 2.0 was operational we would have added instead in wind energy no less than 10MW capacity, negating the need for Snowy 2.0.
Try using data or some other form of evidence if you are going to bandy around your ideas.
I was only talking theoretically, it is already obvious that the commercial side of renewables (H2) will be exploited much quicker than our domestic requirements, far more money in it and immense market opportunity.
Renewable energy sources are quite viable for many countries. The mix will vary depending location, geography.
Indonesia for example has an excellent range of renewable energy options that would easily power the country. And on top of that the closure of coal fired power stations would reduce the horrendous pollution around the major cities.
Indonesia should put more energy into renewable power
Kate Walton
Blackouts and chronic air pollution in a nation with
abundant sources of clean energy makes no economic sense.
....In fact, Indonesia has the potential to generate 788,000 megawatts (MW) of power from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. This is more than 14 times the country’s current electricity consumption. Thanks to magma, hot rocks, and hot water beneath its surface, Indonesia has 40% of the world’s geothermal energy stores, enough for 29,000 MW of energy. Meanwhile, its huge maritime area could provide 75,760 MW of power through projects such as the Larantuka Straits Tidal Bridge, a US$550 million project that will power 250,000 homes in East Flores. When completed, it will be the world’s largest tidal power plant.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-s-should-put-more-energy-renewable-power
Except that wind most certainly is not a substitute for Snowy 2.0If we followed the UK's lead, by the time Snowy 2.0 was operational we would have added instead in wind energy no less than 10MW capacity, negating the need for Snowy 2.0.
Please show us the costs and scale of existing geothermal operations rather than a research paper.Haha; your Sun Cable project has no economic merit when juxtaposed with geothermal that is in such close proximity. Running cables for 1000s of kilometres from an energy source that has a capacity factor of half that of geothermal.
You truly are delusional.
"Geothermal represents the lowest levelized cost of electricity in comparison to other sources of energy." (https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/u-s-...itive-on-levelized-cost-of-electricity-basis/)
I completely disagree with your statement. The world is in a major energy transition phase and as that resolves nuclear will be an option only when no other supply is feasible.Talking nonesense again Rob, I don't know why I bother, but here we go again.
as you say above, with regard the U.K, you are agreeing with Chrono and myself, there will be a mix of renewables and nuclear.
Australian geothermal isn't viable, too far underground, completely different geophysics.Please show us the costs and scale of existing geothermal operations rather than a research paper.
Numerous projects in Australia, which has excellent geothermal resources...
"It is estimated that one per cent of the geothermal energy shallower than five kilometres and hotter than 150°C could supply Australia's total energy requirements for 26 000 years (based on 2004-05 figures)."have failed to show any commercial potential.
As I have said, Lazard uses real world examples to determine their costings so you will need to stump up.
I completely disagree with your statement. The world is in a major energy transition phase and as that resolves nuclear will be an option only when no other supply is feasible.
I have always maintained that renewables plus storage are essential. That storage can be via conversion to hydrogen, or any battery system.
I don't assume that all the wind power generated is immediately fed into the grid as dispatchable, and you know full well that both wind and solar presently suffer considerable curtailment. Reinvesting "curtailment" into storage solutions should be cost effective.Except that wind most certainly is not a substitute for Snowy 2.0
On the contrary.Australian geothermal isn't viable, too far underground, completely different geophysics.
I think you're just a bit jealous that I have come up with a clearly feasible and original idea that makes far more economic sense than the Sun Cable project.
Iceland are going very well with geothermal.
On the contrary.
Just show us the metrics for the ideas you put up.
Not an insignificant amount of GHG's produced, too.However, as you have previously identified, there are many other issues in Australia disadvantaging new capacity generation, particularly from renewables. As a result, aside from the remarkable Tesla battery's role in stabilising the system, there is no real incentive to invest in storage.
On the contrary.
Just show us the metrics for the ideas you put up.
Get up to speed.Go look at the LCOE of geothermal compared to other energy sources. You are deliberately refusing to look at the numbers. Look at IRENA:
View attachment 105227
Furthermore the geothermal energy is just within a few hundred kilometres from Singapore.
Get up to speed.
Many grid scale solar pv contracts are now being awarded at less than 2 cents/kwh, and costs are continuing to decline.
Geothermal projects are few and far between, and cost are continuing to increase:
View attachment 105228
I notice you continue not to able to show the metrics of your claims wrt to US nuclear and Singapore geothermal.
Now you're just making stuff up with the solar 2 cents per kWH. The capital cost and transmission loss of running cables for 1000s of kilometres kills the Sun Cable just alone; when compared to my geothermal source that is just a few hundred kilometres away from Singapore.
I can torpedo the Sun Cable tonight with the push of a few buttons on my keyboard. I am pretty sure BP and Shell might be interested in my idea.
Geothermal is fine - I am keen on all sensible renewable options. However, all present costs relate to what is called low hanging fruit.Not so smug now rederob; are you?
A quick email to a few BP and Shell executives and you can say goodbye to the Sun Cable
Geothermal is fine - I am keen on all sensible renewable options. However, all present costs relate to what is called low hanging fruit.
The problem is scaling renewables to demand and, in the case of Singapore, thinking that Indonesia would prefer to advantage another country over its own energy needs.
Deals can always be done between the Singaporean and Indonesian governments; I wouldn't be worried about that. They are both a part of ASEAN.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?